Prove Evolution...win money

Originally posted by Gregory
Here is an article on the subject.

(Edited to remove snarkiness, since you seem like a fairly reasonable person)

An interesting read... very provacative.

It is only a theory however, as he maintains at the end. :

"Now, it would not be fair, just because we have presented a realistic evolutionary scheme, supported by gene sequences from modern organisms, to suggest that we now know exactly how the clotting system has evolved. That would be making far too much of our limited ability to reconstruct the details of the past. But nonetheless, there is little doubt that we do know enough to develop a plausible and scientifically valid scenario for how it might have evolved. And that scenario makes specific predictions that can be tested and verified against the evidence."

I notice in particular that he says " plausible scenario for hou it MIGHT have evolved."

I guess that's where this thread should end. Because its all theory's.

Evolution cannot be proved 100% true, and there is not much "proof" that a scientist will accept proving the existence of God/Creation.

I still enjoy the debate, but the thread was started to:

"Prove evolution... win money."

I'm not being a jerk, really, but I haven't heard anybody do so.

You haven't heard evolution proven true because you can't prove a scientific theory; it doesn't make sense to talk like that. A theory isn't proven, its just supported until it seems silly to continue doubting it, and that's more or less what's happened with evolution.

Do you know that wolves and dogs are the same species? Biologically, at least; they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. And yet, a poodle doesn't have much in common with a wolf. Why? Because an outside force--human breeders--selected against certain traits--by not breeding animals who displayed them--while selecting for certain traits--by breeding animals that did select them--and therefore created new ... somethings. Not species, but varieties that are fundamentally different from each other. So you know that what evolution describes--a change in a population based on outside pressures--does, in fact, happen; even Creationists admit this; they just like to call it microevolution, because it helps them pretend that they're not seeing evolution happen before their very eyes.

But can you support a difference between -micro and -macro evolution? Is there any quantatative difference between dogs being selected for intelligence (Dobermen for example) and apes being selected for intelligence, except that the latter makes Creationists squirm while the former doesn't? I don't think there is. We know that natural pressure can result in huge differences over time; we know that humans are genetically very similar to apes; when you come right down to it, evolution is almost obvious, in my opinion.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
You did not get me here.

You did get me here, however.

Bravo.

I honestly did not know that. I would want to make valid points through valid info. so please disreagard.

Do you have an answer to the platelets question?

Or any others that I posted?

Or just more emotionalist naysaying?

If you're not genuinely interested in seeking information and learning something then frankly I have no time for you. Educating people who intend to deliberately misinterpret, misrepresent or manipulate things I've said isn't a hobby of mine.

Smoking has a causative role in lung cancer. Obesity and diabetes are linked. I state these as facts and they've been proven scientifically. It still isn't 100% proven that a fat smoker will develop lung cancer and diabetes.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
I honestly did not know that.

Perhaps you should get this put on a tee shirt?

😂

still while you were quick to google up a faux quote you didn't even try to google your own question? when I bet Gregory found one....

sorry if you think i'm being "disrespectful" But once I read your profile It all became clear...

These sort of faux promises of winning money for proving the near impossible are just a cry off attention... trying to get creationist support.. while there own theory has just as many wholes but they don't offer money for solutions for those, Why?

while there own theory has just as many wholes but they don't offer money for solutions for those, Why?

Originally posted by Gregory
You haven't heard evolution proven true because you can't prove a scientific theory; it doesn't make sense to talk like that. A theory isn't proven, its just supported until it seems silly to continue doubting it, and that's more or less what's happened with evolution.

Do you know that wolves and dogs are the same species? Biologically, at least; they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. And yet, a poodle doesn't have much in common with a wolf. Why? Because an outside force--human breeders--selected against certain traits--by not breeding animals who displayed them--while selecting for certain traits--by breeding animals that did select them--and therefore created new ... somethings. Not species, but varieties that are fundamentally different from each other. So you know that what evolution describes--a change in a population based on outside pressures--does, in fact, happen; even Creationists admit this; they just like to call it microevolution, because it helps them pretend that they're not seeing evolution happen before their very eyes.

But can you support a difference between -micro and -macro evolution? Is there any quantatative difference between dogs being selected for intelligence (Dobermen for example) and apes being selected for intelligence, except that the latter makes Creationists squirm while the former doesn't? I don't think there is. We know that natural pressure can result in huge differences over time; we know that humans are genetically very similar to apes; when you come right down to it, evolution is almost obvious, in my opinion.

good post...although the genetic compatibility isn't always the case

there us a species of north american frog which was genetically traced through its eventual spreading south across america...there are now several distinct variations on the initial species...and while each can breed with the type from its naeighbouring locale...the 2 types of frog at either end of the chain cannot interbreed and are thus 2 distinct species

the same is the case with north atlantic gulls although in that case they are genetically compatible but natural eye ring colour prevents breeding between them

its difficult to PROVE macro evolution as in whales to tigers or a change as vast, simply because of the observational timescales needed

but i cant say i've ever heard good arguments from creationists that explain vestigial organs, the massive similarities between ancient bacteria and modern Eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells with relation to ribosomes and thus Endosymbiotic explanations for early life

creationists always rely on the argument of "evolution has a missing link here, here and here...therfor god exists"

whereas the evidence for god is absolutely non existant anywhere except when jesus' face appears in vegetables 😛

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Number one is a deliberate misinterpretation, I've stated Homo neanderthalensis is a different species from Homo sapiens but still a member of the family Hominidae. I've never stated that Homo neanderthalensis is a different species of Homo sapiens.

Just like Homo-Asianis is a different species, as is Homo-Negroidis, and Homo-Mongloidis, and Homo Honkeyish..blah..blah..blah...🙄 😆 😆

You're babbling..using excessively over-complicated terminology to confuse people from the obvious truth. That truth being that the Neandrathal man is a duh..duh..duh..duh..human!!

To state that he is of a different "species" is a ridiculous assumption. It would be like if I were to classify an African, Asian, or a Caucasian as a different "species." Utterly Ridiculous bud. But you are indeed entitled to believe what you wish.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Number two is an outright lie on your part.

Nope. You just never answered the question.😉

lol..you knew what the answer was, unfortunately like many Evolutionists, you understand that directly answering such a question completely decimates the foundations of your faith.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I wasn't even part of your stupid argument in number 3, but having authority does not equate to being an authority on an issue - Hitler was not an authority on Judaism

Guess what would happen if Hitler said you were a "Jew" during the Natzi era?

answer: you'd be dead.

What if you told Hitler you weren't a "Jew"..and he still said that you were a "Jew"?

answer: You'd be dead.

lol..who do you believe has the "valid" authority on determining who is a "Jew" in Natzi Germany or any other secularistic government X?

Would it be the Government/Hitler..or the alleged "Jew"? Come on now my friend..surely you can see that this is a foolish argument to even debate.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
- it's not my problem if you don't understand this. Number 4 I've never stated, and besides things do not have to "make sense" to you in order for the universe to continue.

I'm sure your god doesn't appreciate your lies, halfwit.

Not lies my friend. You just can't except the truth. Wasn't "spontaneous generation" proven be a false theory over a century ago?

✅

Does the TOE essentially support the idea of "spontaneous generation"?

✅

The problem is that you and many others like you over complicate things. You study various fields for years on end, and sad to say...any dink can pick up a book relatiing to chemistry/ molecular biology and easily refute your non sensical claims. Hell..one really doesn't have to study these fields to know that you can't get "something" from "nothing"..lol..this is just common sense knowledge my friend.

But I wish you good luck to you with your studies, just make sure can ascertain the obvious evidence which supports such studies before you conduct them.😉😆

Fin

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
still while you were quick to google up a faux quote you didn't even try to google your own question? when I bet Gregory found one....

sorry if you think i'm being "disrespectful" But once I read your profile It all became clear...

These sort of faux promises of winning money for proving the near impossible are just a cry off attention... trying to get creationist support.. while there own theory has just as many wholes but they don't offer money for solutions for those, Why?

What became clear after reading my profile?

Make yourself understood, son.

I didn't "google" this question, Dr. Kent Hovind is a legitamite person, whose offer has been out since 2003, and I provided the link to his website.

Did you bother to visit it before bashing me?

I didn't post it to "drum up creationist support".

Point of fact, most people know that evolution is just a theory, and that there have been many false starts/ mistakes in the 150+ years that it has been debated.

As you say its " proving the near impossible". That is the faux.

The offer and the money are not.

If you're so sure, and this issue is settled, proved, and Creationists are fools,..... then why is it impossible?

Reading your profile suggests that you enjoy fantasy/anime. Right on.

(It's off topic, but since you felt the need to include it in your post, I'll return the favor, in a positive way.)

Originally posted by sithsaber408
What became clear after reading my profile?
I didn't "google" this question, Dr. Kent Hovind is a legitamite person, whose offer has been out since 2003, and I provided the link to his website.

Point of fact, most people know that evolution is just a theory, and that there have been many false starts/ mistakes in the 150+ years that it has been debated.

If you're so sure, and this issue is settled, proved, and Creationists are fools,..... then why is it impossible?

Reading your profile suggests that you enjoy fantasy/anime. Right on.

(It's off topic, but since you felt the need to include it in your post, I'll return the favor, in a positive way.)

Would you say this is a fairly accurate picture of you life...
Generally shit... Found god... everything turned around life is better now...

I'm not talking about the initial post.. But the post from the "dr know it all who asked if they could prove 1 thing about evolution..." which later got debunked by Gregory...

Creationists don't show anything... They got a book... and only the doubt they can scrape together... Evolution theory solves 90% of the problems out there... it just misses a few areas due to evidence and science not having a time machine... The only half solution creationists have is via intelligent design, and most of that is biased on doubting of science and praising of god....

I like anime.... I like science fiction... But seeing as you have a SW sig... I guess your just as bad... And if your wondering about the other parts... Well keep wondering...

Q: If evolution were false--and I talk about this only for the sake of argument, since it clearly isn't--would it support Creationism?

A: Only to the extent that it also supports the Hopi creation myth and the alien seeding hypothesis. So how about it? How about some positive evidence, hm?

ps: Hovind may be a "legitimate person" (as opposed to what? A robot?), but he's not a legitimate doctor--he got his doctrate from unaccredited* degree mill. And even then, he studied education, not biology.

*The American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions doesn't count, and you know it. They sell accreditation for a hundred dollars.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Just like Homo-Asianis is a different species, as is Homo-Negroidis, and Homo-Mongloidis, and Homo Honkeyish..blah..blah..blah...🙄 😆 😆

You're babbling..using excessively over-complicated terminology to confuse people from the obvious truth. That truth being that the Neandrathal man is a duh..duh..duh..duh..[b]human!!

To state that he is of a different "species" is a ridiculous assumption. It would be like if I were to classify an African, Asian, or a Caucasian as a different "species." Utterly Ridiculous bud. But you are indeed entitled to believe what you wish. [/B]

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Nope.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
You just never answered the question.😉

Originally posted by whobdamandog
lol..you knew what the answer was, unfortunately like many Evolutionists, you understand that directly answering such a question completely decimates the foundations of your faith.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Guess what would happen if Hitler said you were a "Jew" during the Natzi era?

answer: you'd be dead.

What if you told Hitler you weren't a "Jew"..and he still said that you were a "Jew"?

answer: You'd be dead.

lol..who do you believe has the "valid" authority on determining who is a "Jew" in Natzi Germany or any other secularistic government X?

Would it be the Government/Hitler..or the alleged "Jew"? Come on now my friend..surely you can see that this is a foolish argument to even debate.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Not lies my friend. You just can't except the truth. Wasn't "spontaneous generation" proven be a false theory over a century ago?

✅

Does the TOE essentially support the idea of "spontaneous generation"?

✅

The problem is that you and many others like you over complicate things. You study various fields for years on end, and sad to say...any dink can pick up a book relatiing to chemistry/ molecular biology and easily refute your non sensical claims. Hell..one really doesn't have to study these fields to know that you can't get "something" from "nothing"..lol..this is just common sense knowledge my friend.

But I wish you good luck to you with your studies, just make sure can ascertain the obvious evidence which supports such studies before you conduct them.😉😆

Fin

Evolution is still just a theory. You can't prove it 100%. Hence The Theory of Evolution.

Originally posted by Ladyluck
Evolution is still just a theory. You can't prove it 100%. Hence The Theory of Evolution.

And Creationism is just a myth. You can't prove it even 1%.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And Creationism is just a myth. You can't prove it even 1%.

Very true.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Same applies to you, good sir. Please dispute my source with something of SUBSTANCE, rather than a crack about a book that you've never cracked.

Piltdown Man was a fraud. I don't see your reason for saying that I should'nt include him in an argument about the validity of Evolutionism.

You have a point about some of the things throughout history that have wrongly been used to validate Christianity, and I applaud your knowleged of that subject. 🙂

Please use your knowledge to stay on topic, and provide points/counterpoints to the discussion that is currently underway.

(Rather than respond out of emotionalism and say, "but Christ has had false evidence too."😉 Its not the focus of the thread.

Oh, I know the book, and others like it. The problem basing arguments on encyclopedias and other sources intended to offer summaries of an event, time, issue etc is they aren't analytical in sense. They other a snapshot. "Piltdown man was a falsity created by so and so believed to be true by scientists for x amount of years till it was defunct" - All completely true, and it's perfectly ok to mention Piltdown man, but without that analysis we loose what effect he had in the long term, and that was that he in no way effected the validity of the evolutionary theory, in fact he strengthened it.

Firstly, it's often portrayed as a bunch of scientists cooking up a crazy scheme to make people believe evolution - it's not, it's was the work of a con artist looking for a quick buck and some fame (which he got.) Now, in that sense it's not like the entire field of evolution is built upon fakes, and Piltdown man is an exception, not the rule - just like when a conman offers a two headed cow to a freak show it doesn't impact on biology and zoology, or a fake set of Hitler diaries don't bring the entire study of history crashing down. Forgeries and fakes are part of the humanities, and science has it's fair share to. The thing has been to identify them and remove them from the strata of real evidence.

And it must be noted that it wasn't a thoughtful old bishop that revealed the hoax, it was the scientists themselves who thought there was something wrong - they tested, and proved it was false. And as I said, it helped the evolutionary theory. People who study this area are remarkably stringent now in their research and asserting the validity of claims and of making sure the fossils are genuine, so the artifacts, fossil evidence and the like that deal with with evolution aren't taken at face value any more. They are tested, analysed - to make sure it's not a hoax. Piltdown man helped develop that cautionary culture that works to insure that only the facts, not the hoax's, get through. And as a result the list of successful hoaxes is far, far shorter for evolution then it is for the Catholic Church where, incidental, NEARLY everything they have put forward over the last 100 year from the Shroud onwards, has failed to stand up to scientific enquiry.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Just like Homo-Asianis is a different species, as is Homo-Negroidis, and Homo-Mongloidis, and Homo Honkeyish..blah..blah..blah...roll eyes (sarcastic) laughing laughing

You're babbling..using excessively over-complicated terminology to confuse people from the obvious truth. That truth being that the Neandrathal man is a duh..duh..duh..duh..human!!

To state that he is of a different "species" is a ridiculous assumption. It would be like if I were to classify an African, Asian, or a Caucasian as a different "species." Utterly Ridiculous bud. But you are indeed entitled to believe what you wish.

Ouch. I just think I felt some of my well being towards my fellow man wither and die.... There is so much wrong with this... I think I need to lie down.

But first, using a slightly flawed example, you do know that your house cat (a particular species) is also a member of the same family as the lion, tiger etc? And there are different breeds of cat, but they are still genetically the same species - cat (say, modern humans, Asians, Africans etc), but in family terms they have cousins and ancestors - lions, sabre tooth tigers etc (say, our hominid forefathers, the great apes, evolutionary dead ends, alternatives and the like?) Now, homo sapiens are a single species, but we the latest in the large family homo which includes our dear Neanderthal - he is not human, but he is part of the family that eventually produced humans - simple enough yes?

"As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? The number of intermediate links between all living and extinct species must have been inconcievably great."-Charles Darwin.

"Darwin admitted that millions of 'missing links', transitional life forms, would have to be discovered in the fossil record to prove the accuracy of his theory that all species had gradually evolved by chance mutation into new species. [edit: see above post] Unfortunately for his theory, despite hundreds of millions spent on searching for fossils worldwide for more than a century, the scientists have failed to locate A SINGLE MISSING LINK out of the millions that must exist if their theory of evolution is to be vindicated"- Grant R. Jeffery, "The Signature of God."

I know full well that the first quote is not the full text of what Darwin said, but think about the implications.

This is a theory that even he knew was hard to prove. He had reasons why things COULD have happened, but no more.

It's more of an option for disproving God, if you ask me.

A way to say "He might not exist. This MIGHT be what happened. This MIGHT be how the life on earth ended up in the present state that it is in".

The theory is logical, sound, and possible.

Explained as it is,.... it COULD have happened.

The British COULD have defeated the Colonists, but we don't teach that as fact.

I don't mind a theory, but when I hear that it is certain, undeniable fact that we evloved from primates, and were not created in our present state.... I can only shake my head in disbelief.

Some of you may one day kill yourselves. It's a logical, sound, and possible event.

But I won't consider you dead just yet. 😛

Originally posted by sithsaber408
I don't mind a theory, but when I hear that it is certain, undeniable fact that we evloved from primates, and were not created in our present state.... I can only shake my head in disbelief.

And the uncanny resemblance of our DNA???
Or the fact that Mitocondria has its own cell wall???
Or why we don't use all our brain???

perhaps even.. Why do we have soo much Junk DNA in the form of introns???

Please take the time to read though this page.. It answers Alot of your points... including "missing links".... there have been several found.. Even ones from ape to man...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

Here are some Transistion fossils...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
(some of the articals aren't complete but you can use the names to search though..

Just think though... if the entire human race droped dead tommorrow,(only the humans) how many remains would you except to find after 1000 years???? 25000 years????
perhaps less then 5 if your very...very lucky...

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Yes, a human with rickets... 🙄

Yup either rickets, rheumatoid arthritis, or some other degenerative bone disease. I'm glad you are finally beginning to accept this.😉

In fact many of these people suffered from hereditary bone conditions. Hereditary conditions are common among people who are of a particular race/ethnic group. Sometimes these conditions can be attributed to a culture's diet, sometimes they're attributed to the environment in which they live, and sometimes the condition is simply a genetic one.

Damn. They must have lowered the standard as to what one has to do to get a PHD nowadays..😆 Anyway, one doesn't need a PHD in molecular biology to comprehend these simple concepts bud...😉

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The fact that you obviously have no idea how a species is defined despite being told several times,

the fact that you continue to spout your claptrap as if you have anything at all besides some ultrareligious young earth creationist websites supporting you, the fact that you continually try to manipulate or deliberately misinterpret things people have said, really shows how pointless it is replying to you.

Did I say the thing you wrote? No. So you lied. As you have oft-times before.And he lies again while trying to deny lying. I answered the question. I didn't give you the answer you may have wanted. However I answered your question. For a "moral absolutist" you tend to lie a lot when it suits you.

Your ignorance proves nothing but your ignorance. You are a joke, nothing more. Attend a symposium. You can be the jester.

If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around..does it make a sound?

If a person spouts bullsh*t unrelated to topic at hand in an obvious attempt to damage credibility and to cover up the fact that their argument has been severly beaten down, does it make it any less bullsh*t..❌

I scanned through the paragraphs a few times..and I didn't see anything that related to the arguments. Wasn't it a wise man who once said..those who cry the loudest..usually have the least to say?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Hitler does not dictate what a person is. Hitler does not say, you are a medical doctor, and suddenly you are capable of surgery and general practice.

In a secular society, the government is the highest authority my friend.

You are either misunderstanding this simple concept or being stubborn. My guess is that it's both. In this particular case, "Hitler" and the Natzi party represent the Government, and they do indeed determine what qualifications one must have in order for them to qualify as a "doctor."

The only reason I reply to you is that utter bullshit should be called to account, you smug dishonest religious nut. Oh yes, ignorance is bliss. You must be a very happy person then.

Translated: Nice debating with you whob. I've lost this debate, and have nothing else to say other than throw insults and ridicule. You win I loose.

Nice debating with you too X..good luck with your studies.. 😄